If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

But isn't that risk a part of their job? When Pearl Harbor was bombed that wasn't considered a terrorist attack. It was an act of war. Civilians where killed in the bombing but the death or terrorizing of civilians was not the main objective, neutralizing Pearl Harbor was the objective.

Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack from a military against another military. The objective was, in part, to strike fear. The main objective was to disable the closest Naval Fleet. It was a strategic strike.

I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad

It was a sneak attack. Not quite the same thing. The Japanese supposedly intended to formally declare war immediately prior to Pearl Harbor, but the attack came first through a bungled communique.

If you have two armies or combined arms going against each other that is war, declared or not, not terrorism. It may also have the effect of terrorising the civilian populations, but it's still symmetric, not asymmetric warfare.

If you have a non-governmental group or individual attacking either civilian or military targets, that's terrorism, even if the perpetrator has successfully infiltrated an armed service as in this case.

I suppose I should let everyone know what prompted this. I was thinking about how some names and actions become deluted by over user to the point of desensitizing people when the hear the word. Back in the 40s and 50s to call someone a nazi or a communist was really a biting remark, by the 70s the words had no power because the were so over used. Another example is homophobe, before the gay crowd started labeling anyone who disagreed with them as a homophobe this word had impact. Now it means nothing. I'm seeing the same thing happening with terrorist. We have domestic terrorism when a husband comes home drunk and brow beats his wife. Tell someone you want to kick their ass and you are now guilty of making a terroristic threat.

It seems we realized what effect the word had on people have 9/11 and now we are starting to apply it to everything in order to generate the same effect in situations where it may or may not be needed. We take words and us them as a modern version of crying wolf when their are no wolves around. Was the Ft. Hood shooter a wolf? Probably. Maybe, however, he just wanted for people to think of him as a wolf when in reality he is just a scared little man who realized how insignificant he is and wanted to make a difference by pretending to be something that he wasn't.

I suppose I should let everyone know what prompted this. I was thinking about how some names and actions become deluted by over user to the point of desensitizing people when the hear the word. Back in the 40s and 50s to call someone a nazi or a communist was really a biting remark, by the 70s the words had no power because the were so over used. Another example is homophobe, before the gay crowd started labeling anyone who disagreed with them as a homophobe this word had impact. Now it means nothing. I'm seeing the same thing happening with terrorist. We have domestic terrorism when a husband comes home drunk and brow beats his wife. Tell someone you want to kick their ass and you are now guilty of making a terroristic threat.

It seems we realized what effect the word had on people have 9/11 and now we are starting to apply it to everything in order to generate the same effect in situations where it may or may not be needed. We take words and us them as a modern version of crying wolf when their are no wolves around. Was the Ft. Hood shooter a wolf? Probably. Maybe, however, he just wanted for people to think of him as a wolf when in reality he is just a scared little man who realized how insignificant he is and wanted to make a difference by pretending to be something that he wasn't.

Just a thought.

No, you're just a Muslim loving liberal victim monger. Admit it.:D

I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad

In all seriousness - terrorism is a random act of violence where the main intent or even result is inspiring fear and discomfort in a group of people with the intent of influencing the choices / actions / policies of that group.

I always thought terrorism was a technique, or method of attack, that involved small, targeted attacks instead of a full-army invasion. As a kid, one of the first contexts I heard the term used in was the Vietnam War-the way the Vietcong fought the US was called terrorism by television commentators.

I personally understand why no one wanted to call the Ft. Hood shootings a terrorist attack before all the evidence was in, because everyone seems to have a different definition of what the term means. What does it mean in a legal/prosecutorial sense or a tactical sense? Does it go to motive?

The guy at Ft. Hood's motive was to kill some in order to terrorize everyone. That makes it terrorism in the motive sense and in the tactical sense, but I'm not sure it does in a legal sense, if his actions that day alone are being judged. But with the info coming out about his attempts to contact al Queda and all, it will probably be easier to make the statement that he is a terrorist.

Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack from a military against another military. The objective was, in part, to strike fear. The main objective was to disable the closest Naval Fleet. It was a strategic strike.

So military actions can not be terroristic because the are of a strategic nature and the military are performing them. When Saddam's army torched the Kiuwati oil fields was that a military action or a terroristic one? Arguements can be made both ways. Was the US use of nukes on population centers military or terrorist actions. There the goal was a much to terrorize the Jap civilians as it was to destroy military infrastructure. When Russia started killing eastern Europeans at the end of WWII because they couldn't tell who were German soldiers dressed as civilians and who were really civilians.

Hey I have no issues with dropping the nukes on Japan, I'm just trying to muddy the waters a little bit. In times of war things happen but now we are trying to fight these battles with rules and it seems that anything that falls outside of those rules is considered terrorism by one side or the other. There weren't really a lot of rules in WWII other than kill your enemy before he kills you and in some cases the distinction between military and civilian was not made nor did it matter. The birth of terrorism seems to be that we now have rules and make these distinctions.

I think our problem is with semantics. I've always thought that the division between terrorism and anything else was largely illusory. Noonwitch is right in that terrorism is more a technique of war rather than a substantially different thing.

Now, was this an act of war committed against the U.S. military by a traitor? You bet. The guy is clearly a traitor so there's no argument against that. Did he see himself as part of a far flung an enemy force? Yep.

That's about all I need to know in terms of labeling or categorizing this event.

However, political correctness probably forbids the use of "traitor" as a descriptor these days.

I will ask you, was Pearl Harbor a terrorist act? It meets much of the criteria you have established but to my knowledge it has never been described as a terrorist action.

No it was not. The Japanese were uniformed enemies fighting under the flag AND uniform of their country. These hadji's fight for their own personal belief that the West is evil incarnate and cannot fight a modern military force head on so they resort to the cowardly tactic of fighting unarmed civilians.

So military actions can not be terroristic because the are of a strategic nature and the military are performing them. When Saddam's army torched the Kiuwati oil fields was that a military action or a terroristic one? Arguements can be made both ways. Was the US use of nukes on population centers military or terrorist actions. There the goal was a much to terrorize the Jap civilians as it was to destroy military infrastructure. When Russia started killing eastern Europeans at the end of WWII because they couldn't tell who were German soldiers dressed as civilians and who were really civilians.

Hey I have no issues with dropping the nukes on Japan, I'm just trying to muddy the waters a little bit. In times of war things happen but now we are trying to fight these battles with rules and it seems that anything that falls outside of those rules is considered terrorism by one side or the other. There weren't really a lot of rules in WWII other than kill your enemy before he kills you and in some cases the distinction between military and civilian was not made nor did it matter. The birth of terrorism seems to be that we now have rules and make these distinctions.

It's ALL semantics. Good rule of thumb is, "Does it pass the smell test?"

I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad